Reply With Quote
Equally scientifically, #TrumpWon has been trending on Twitter all day, so we should probably just go ahead and call the election.
I'd start with things that ultimately serve to just forestall or eliminate litigation. In Texas, that would be things like the ridiculous impediments that exist in the current version of the Texas Med Mal statute; the onerous Certificate of Merit requirement in Chapter 150 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which can (remarkably) be invoked at any time without a right to remedy; the insulating provisions of Chapter 95 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code for landowners, even when the foster environments that result in injury; and allowing a civil defendant to shift responsibility for a lawsuit to an empty chair that could have never been made a party to a lawsuit. There are others, and my list is just limited to Texas.
Tort law should be fair to all parties, not preclusive to injured parties.
That is, indeed, the logic that supports tort reform -- "if the little guy gets hurt and sues, he'll damage a business and we can't have that, so let's just stop the little guy from suing and we'll just assume that market forces will compel humanity in corporations."
And saying that experience with two (or even two hundred) shady lawyers justifies limiting the rights of citizens to obtain recompense for actual harms done to them is like using a nuclear bomb to eradicate an ant hill. If the problem is with the lawyers, then be more careful with the regulation of lawyers, even if it means regulating their earnings in some socialistic way. But don't regulate lawyers on the backs of injured people who need to be made whole and are denied that because people don't like plaintiff's lawyers. And while I get what you're saying about attorney's fees, but it's remarkable to me that while we are perfectly willing to put what are essentially price controls on legal services, there's a vehement refusal to do that to professionals in any other walk of life.
Equally scientifically, #TrumpWon has been trending on Twitter all day, so we should probably just go ahead and call the election.
Tort reform as a method to curtail bad lawsuits is a lazy approach to the problem you identify. If there are bad plaintiffs and bad lawyers (a concern that is not limited solely to those who prosecute actions on behalf of injured people), then use existing procedural and disciplinary devices to punish them when they've done wrong. Tort reformers act sometimes as if there's no cure to litigation problems other than just pulling the plug on litigation; that's fundamentally wrong, as a matter of law. I believe that the "oh, plaintiffs' lawyers are bad" has become a crutch to push the intent of the law into something that the public will view more palatably and perhaps join the chorus.
At the end of the day, though, tort reform is about creating an environment where business can do mostly as it wishes, with only self-imposed regard for the welfare of citizens, by ensuring that when something goes wrong and someone gets hurt, the burden of that falls somewhere other than the bottom line.
I do agree that we're unlikely to see eye-to-eye on this; and frankly, it's not really the topic at hand, so I think I'll wait for a more relevant thread to continue with this. I have enjoyed a civil and spirited conversation, though.
Tort reform in TX essentially closed the court house door for 1000s of plaintiffs because the cap dissuaded lawyers from taking cases.
Donald Trump Lies About His Iraq War Support, Wishes Someone Would Call Sean Hannity
Trump said the Fox News personality can vouch for him.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b08d73b8327be4
It kind of blows my mind that so many people think that frivolous lawsuits are a bigger problem today than the lack of resources most of the country has to put together a meaningful and successful lawsuit.
She really helped herself last night I think. I was actually worried going into the debate that she would sink to Trump's level and she didn't. I think she learned her lesson in 08 while she was aggressive and nasty like Trump is now is how she was against Obama. Obama was the cooler head and the voters seemed to like that.
So true lol
She was better, and she certainly looked great next to Donald, but I'd like for her to still lean a lot less on the "You said this and it was offensive" line of attack in the next debates.
I'll add one more thing that is judge-related but not tort reform related: the idea that Trump would appoint justices or judges who would find no cons utional problem with programs like stop-and-frisk is a frightening proposition to me. And it's enough to tell me an America with Trump's judges passing on the legality of policies of that sort could become a pretty frightening place for those who find themselves outside of the majority on any particular issue.
As a global point, I strongly disagree with your characterization of tort practice in general. This goes to the point you make below about not punishing others due to the unscrupulous practices of bad attorneys. I think we'll disagree on that since, in my experience, the overwhelming majority of plaintiffs attorneys only care about making a profit and don't care about their clients. Of course there are ethical, good plaintiffs attorneys, but I'm weary of opening the floodgates for greedy assholes.
As for the legal points, again, I think you're being a little too general. I've had experience with several of those statutes and disagree with you there. As for the CoM statute. First off, it typically applies to design professionals accused of malpractice in construction defect case -- which is different than what I'm talking about, which are personal injury cases. Moreover, customary practice in construction defect litigation is to have your expert(s) produce reports. You'd have a really hard time without such a report. So I'd hardly consider it "onerous."
As for Chapter 95, that statute only serves to protect landowners who don't exercise control over the instrumentality that injured the plaintiff. What's wrong with that? I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "fostering" environments that result in injury -- the statute clearly spells out if the landowner has control + knowledge, there's a claim of liability.
As for RTP practice, I don't think your reading is right. 33.004(d) precludes a defendant from designating as a RTP someone whom limitations has expired. I've seen this been abused in the opposite context, where limitations has expired on a third party, the plaintiff amends their pe ion to assert additional (factual) claims against the third party (i.e., a material vendor), and the court then denies the motion for leave because limitations had expired.
I do agree, in general, that tort law (all law) should be fair to everyone.
Tort law should be fair to all parties, not preclusive to injured parties.
I think you and I would reach a lot more common ground if contingency fees were limited to a small percentage and/or capped in someway. That will never happen though for obvious reasons. And there's still the challenge of determining what "meaningful recovery" means for a personal injury plaintiff.
I think it a much better solution that using what amounts to Rule 13/FRCP 11 sanctions for frivilous pleadings. State judges in Texas are elected. They're allergic to motions for summary judgment. I don't share the optimism you have in existing procedural/disciplinary devices to curtail bad/frivolous lawsuits. Especially in the personal injury context where the threat of attorney's fees awards mean nothing. If you can think of a better alternative than tort reform, I'm happy to listen. But I have absolutely no faith that the current rules and/or the Texas Bar is in a position to regulate the thousands of lawsuits that are filed daily.
As for the rest, I agree, we'll save this for another day.
be specific
#ChumpTrump2016
"frivolous lawsuits" is a bull lie from Repugs and VRWC/BigCorp lobbyists.
It was hilarious to see rightwingnuts says "frivolous lawsuits" was a reason US health care was so expensive. "studies showed" that all medical malpractice payouts were a tiny percentage of total US health care cost, and of those, an even tinier percentage could have been considered somewhat frivolous.
Why was "frivolous lawsuits" lie created? To increase the profits of insurers, on the backs of wronged patients.
TX Repugs said doctors refused to come to TX because of high insurance costs. After TX capped payouts, insurance rates didn't go down, but insurers profits went up from fewer malpractice payouts.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 09-27-2016 at 03:33 PM.
no. working on your reading and critical thinking skills is for the better.
so i outed myself as nobody in particular?cool
20 Lies Donald Trump Told At The First Presidential Debate
Donald Trump, already notorious for his mind-blowing dishonesty, repeated many of his usual lies during last night’s presidential debate—and added some new ones.
Some of Trump’s whoppers were obviously false, while others required a bit more digging to disprove.
Here are just 20 lies that Trump told during his first debate against Hillary Clinton:
Trump’s lies about his own history
Lie #1: Denies making remarks about climate change.
Clinton: “Donald thinks that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. I think it's real.”
Trump: “I did not—I do not say that.”
Trump has in fact said that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese:
Follow
Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump
The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-compe ive.
1:15 PM - 6 Nov 2012
✔@realDonaldTrump
Ice storm rolls from Texas to Tennessee - I'm in Los Angeles and it's freezing. Global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax!
9:13 AM - 6 Dec 2013
Lie #2: Denies his own proposal to negotiate down the debt.
✔@realDonaldTrump
NBC News just called it the great freeze - coldest weather in years. Is our country still spending money on the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX?
5:48 PM - 25 Jan 2014
Clinton: “You even went and suggested that you would try to negotiate down the national debt of the United States.”
Trump: “Wrong.”
Trump has said that as president, “I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal” on the debt. Economists have widely panned this idea aseconomically catastrophic.
Lie #3: Denies supporting the Iraq War.
“I did not support the war in Iraq.”
Trump expressed support for the invasion of Iraq before it took place and only said that he opposed the war after the conflict had started.
Lie #4: Denies calling pregnancy a business inconvenience.
Clinton: “This is a man who is called women pigs, slobs and dogs, and someone who has said pregnancy is an inconvenience to employers.”
Trump: “I never said that.”
In 2004, Trump said that pregnancy is “certainly an inconvenience for a business.”
Lie #5: Contradicts himself about his tax audit.
Trump: “I’m under a routine audit.”
[moments later]
Trump: “Look, I have been under audit almost for 15 years. I know a lot of wealthy people that have never been audited. I said, ‘Do you get audited ?’ I get audited almost every year. And in a way I should be complaining. I’m not even complaining. I don't mind them. It’s almost become a way of life. I get audited by the IRS. But other people don't.”
Trump has previously claimed that he is facing an audit, which he has used to justify his refusal to release his tax returns, because he’s “a strong Christian,” but his own lawyers say that the “continuous examination” of his returns is “consistent with the IRS’ practice for large and complex businesses.” Experts also point out that there isnothing preventing Trump from releasing his returns.
Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., said that his father was refusing to release his return because it would be a distraction from his campaign.
Lie #6: Falsely claims he already released key financial information.
“You will learn more about Donald Trump by going down to the federal elections where I filed a one hundred and four page, essentially financial statement of sorts, the forms that they have.”
As PolitiFact notes, this information leaves out essential information, including “details on his effective tax rate, the types of taxes he paid, and how much he gave to charity, as well as a more detailed picture of his income-producing assets.”
Lie #7: Falsely claims he only received a small loan from his father.
“My father gave me a very small loan in 1975.”
Trump has been regaling audiences with the tale that he received a “small loan of a million dollars” from his father, real estate mogul Fred Trump, when he first went into business. Far from an up-from-the-bootstraps success story, Trump regularly relied “on his father’s connections and wealth” in the form of “lucrative trusts” and “numerous loans and loan guarantees, as well as his father’s connections,”
The Washington Postreports.
“As Trump’s casinos ran into trouble,” the Post reports, “Trump’s father also purchased $3.5 million gaming chips, but did not use them, so the casino would have enough cash to make payments on its mortgage—a transaction which casino authorities later said was an illegal loan.”
Indeed, loans Trump received from his father amounted to $14 million, “a value of $31 million in today’s dollars.”
Lie #8: Claims Clinton’s campaign, not Trump, started the birther movement.
“They were pressing it very hard, she failed to get the birth certificate. When I got involved, I didn't fail. I got him to give the birth certificate. So I'm satisfied with it, and I’ll tell you why I’m satisfied with it.”
There is no proof that anyone in Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign pushed the birther conspiracy theory. Instead, Trump cited an interview with Clinton’s former campaign manager in which she said that the campaign fired a volunteer who forwarded a birther email. He also cited a conversation that Sidney Blumenthal, who had no formal role in Clinton’s campaign, had with a McClatchy reporter, but McClatchy “found no proof that Blumenthal questioned Obama’s birthplace.”
Trump’s lies about the economy and finance
Lie #9: Misleadingly claims jobs are “fleeing” abroad.
“Our jobs are fleeing the country.”
Employment has been rising since the end of the Great Recession, but Trump has been using bogus statistics to claim that unemployment is actually as high as 42 percent.
Lie #10: Falsely claims China is devaluing their currency.
“You look at what China is doing to our country in terms of making our product, they're devaluing their currency and there's nobody in our government to fight them.”
In fact, China has of late been doing the opposite of devaluing its currency.
Ian Talley of The Wall Street Journal notes that while “few U.S. economists would disagree China kept the yuan undervalued over the last two decades,” now, “many economists—including some of the strongest advocates for action against Beijing s—say the yuan is now close to fair value. Beijing appreciated the yuan from 2005 to 2014…. In fact, over the last two years, Beijing burned through nearly a quarter of what was once a $4 trillion currency stockpile to prevent the yuan from falling against the dollar.”
Lie #11 : Baselessly claims the Federal Reserve is “doing political” by not increasing interest rates.
“This Janet Yellen of the Fed, the Fed is doing political by keeping interest rates at this level. And believe me the day Obama goes off and he leaves and he goes out to the golf course for the rest of his life to play golf, when they raise interest rates, you are going to see some very bad things happen because the Fed is not doing their job. The Fed is being more political than Secretary Clinton.”
The Federal Reserve is an independent ins ution and Trump has yet to offer any evidence that Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen is taking her cues from President Obama, a claim that he has been making for weeks.
Trump’s lies about national security
Lie #12 : Absurdly claims Clinton has fought ISIS for decades.
“No wonder you’ve been fighting ISIS your entire adult life.”
ISIS was created out of the Islamic State of Iraq, which was founded in 2006, and was in turn the descendent of Al Qaeda in Iraq, established in 2004. Hillary Clinton is 68 years old and graduated from college in 1969.
Lie #13 : Claims other countries don’t pay us for military defense.
“We defend Germany. We defend South Korea. We defend Saudi Arabia. We defend countries. They do not pay us what they should be paying us because we are providing tremendous service and we’re losing a fortune.”
The U.S. is hardly “losing a fortune” in military aid.
Lie #14 : Falsely claims NATO allies aren’t paying the U.S.
Trump: “We pay approximately 73 percent of the cost of NATO.”
Not even close .
Lie #15: Falsely claims the U.S. paid Iran $400 million.
“One of the great giveaways of all time, of all time, including four hundred million dollars in cash nobody’s ever seen that before that turned out to be wrong.”
As the New York Times notes, the money Trump referenced “was Iran’s money, for military goods never delivered to Iran after the Iranian Revolution.”
Trump’s lies about crime
Lie #16: Absurdly suggests America is experiencing a crime wave.
“We have a situation where we have our inner cities, African-American, Hispanics, are living in because it's so dangerous. You walk down the street, you get shot. In Chicago, they’ve had thousands of shootings, thousands, since January first. Thousands of shootings. And I’m saying where is this? Is this a war-torn countr y?”
Far from a crime wave, FactCheck.org points out that the violent crime rate [] “is lower than it has been since 1970” and “the murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rate nationwide, at 4.5 in 2014, was at its lowest point since at least the early 1960s.”
Lie #17: Baselessly says stop and frisk “worked very well” in New York.
“You do stop and frisk, which worked very well—Mayor Giuliani is here — worked very well in New York.”
Katherine Krueger of TPM writes that a “2013 report from the New York attorney general found that out of 2.4 million stops by police between 2009 and 2012, the stops resulted in a 3 percent conviction rate, and just 0.1 percent of the total stops went on to a violent crime conviction.” Other cities that did not use stop and frisk experienced similar dips in crime, and one study, according to the Washington Post , “found that a high rate of stop-and-frisks was not associated with reduced crime when the practice was indiscriminate.” New York City’s crime rate continued to fall after stop-and-frisk was ended.
Lie #18: Falsely claims the murder rate in New York went up after the end of stop and frisk.
Clinton: “Well, it's also fair to say, if we’re going to talk about mayors, that under the current mayor crime has continued to drop, including murders. So there is—“
Trump: “You're wrong.”
Clinton: “No, I'm not.”
Trump: “Murders are up.”
Trump is wrong: Homicides in New York have been on the decline.
Lie #19: Falsely claims stop and frisk wasn’t ruled uncons utional.
Lester Holt: “Stop and frisk was ruled uncons utional in New York because it largely singled out black and Hispanic young men.”
Trump: “No, you're wrong. It went before a judge who was a very against-police judge. It was taken away from her and our mayor, our new mayor, refused to go forward with the case. They would have won an appeal.”
Trump is wrong: Stop and frisk was ruled uncons utional in 2013 .
Lie #20: Falsely claims ICE endorsed him.
“I was is endorsed by ICE. They’ve never endorsed anybody before — on immigration. I was just endorsed by ICE.”
ICE is a federal agency and has not endorsed Trump, or any other candidate for that matter.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conten...dential-debate
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
In the last 24 hrs. we have raised over $13M from online donations and National Call Day, and we’re still going! Thank you America! #MAGA
He's still $50M+ behind Hillary, and I'm sure she's, and supporting Super PACs, are hauling in plenty of $Ms to stay in way out in front.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog...election-2016/The Verdict: How It Played in Peoria
PEORIA, Illinois — The most jarring thing about leaving D.C. to watch this debate in central Illinois was the lack of venom and anger in a room populated by voters of opposite stripes. Here at the Michel Student Center at Bradley University, the College Republicans and College Democrats managed to organize a joint pizza party that attracted plenty of unaffiliated students as well. Generally, the students spent more time laughing together at the candidates than pointing fingers at each other.
Shortly after the debate concluded, I convened a totally unscientific focus group of five undecided Bradley students, including one who came in leaning toward Trump, one who was leaning toward Johnson, two who were inclined toward Clinton, and one who wasn’t sure whether he would vote at all. There seemed to be a big disconnect between their impressions and pundits’ obsession with winners and losers. In short, they were galled by what struck them as a lack of substance.
All five nodded in agreement when Valerie, a 19-year-old Clinton leaner, complained that the candidates spent too much time litigating the past (business records, emails) rather than addressing health care, education and the environment in detail. The Johnson leaner and the maybe-voter also disliked Trump’s interruptions and lack of policy specifics, and four of the five agreed that the way Trump handled the race question just didn’t bear any resemblance to their own experiences.
The students were split on Lester Holt’s performance as moderator. The Trump leaner complained that Holt scrutinized Trump far more than Clinton. Two who had supported Bernie Sanders in the primary found the one-moderator format troublesome, arguing that Trump overpowered Holt at times and that Holt could have used backup. But all five of these students badly want Clinton and Trump to focus more on the future and less on each other’s baggage.
SETH MASKET 10:46 PM
It’s not obvious to me what the 10-second takeaway moment is from this debate. But there was one rather telling exchange on the subject of nuclear weapons that stood out to me. Holt asked Trump a question about changes to the no-first-use policy on nuclear weapons. Trump’s answer would generously be described as rambling, going from China to Yemen to payments to Iran to Israel.
Clinton responded with this:
Words matter when you run for president, and they really matter when you are president. And I want to reassure our allies in Japan and South Korea and elsewhere, that we have mutual defense treaties and we will honor them. It is essential that America’s word be good. And so I know that this campaign has caused some questioning and some worries on the part of many leaders across the globe. I’ve talked with a number of them. But I want to — on behalf of myself, and I think on behalf of a majority of the American people — say that our word is good.
In this, she was essentially apologizing to America’s allies for Trump’s words. That’s a bit longer than a classic soundbite, but it could be worked into an effective ad and some devastating news coverage.
Ben Casselman
BEN CASSELMAN 10:45 PM
The very vague pre-announced topics made it hard to know what to expect tonight, substance-wise. In the end, we essentially got two debates: one on the economy and one on foreign policy, with a fairly extended discussion of crime in the middle. That left some surprising gaps: almost no discussion of immigration (Trump’s signature issue), health care (a huge topic during the last election) or energy (apart from Trump’s claim that the U.S. should have “taken the oil” from Iraq and Libya). Maybe they’ll come up more in the next debate.
Carl Bialik
CARL BIALIK 10:44 PM
Pressed by Holt to answer the final question about whether he’d respect the outcome of the election if he loses, Trump ended the debate by saying, “If she wins, I will absolutely support her.” That might feel like an unremarkable answer, and it would be in most U.S. presidential elections. But it’s notable because of Trump’s repeated claims this summer that the election would be “rigged” against him.
Julia Azari
JULIA AZARI 10:44 PM
Returning To The Audience Question
As the debate winds down, I’d like to go back to the question from earlier — who’s the audience for this debate?
Given the unfavorable ratings for both candidates, it seems like one important audience is the type of voter who would like to vote for a major-party candidate but who doesn’t like Trump or Clinton. My sense is that this probably matters more for Trump than for Clinton. She’s a more conventional candidate, and we all know that there are a bunch of ways in which Trump is not — support from some party leaders has been hesitant (or nonexistent), and his policy positions, his history and his path to nomination have all been unusual.
By this measure, Trump did pretty well. He interrupted a lot and made lots of statements that his opponents won’t like, but he didn’t do anything outrageous or different from what he’s done in the past. His statements were fluid. There was no steak salesmanship. It’s probably too early to say, but for a voter who doesn’t want to stay home or vote for a party they don’t normally support, this seems like the kind of performance that would allow you to pull the “R” lever.
Not that easy.
She wins election, but Obama is still president. Were I Obama, I would simply withdraw nomination right before, or right after election.
You are giving the wits too much credit anyway.
Regulation of insurance is done 99% at the state level.
Had a coworker quip once that some of them really should have been regulated by the Nevada Gaming Commission.
I just have stopped buying the HRC is a demonic, maniacal psychopath meme. That schtick is drummed and drummed and drummed, and I go looking for the evidence, and come up far short of anything that could paint her as some malignant evil.
I also don't mind people changing their minds. I am far more su ious of those who never do that, like the intellectual gnats that comprise the evangelical vote, who don't change their mind no matter how much evidence you put in front of them. I am also enough of a realist to know that sometimes you have to put your finger to the wind and shift positions as a politician. Whether that says something negative depends on the cir stances as well.
So once again, I am left with vague "skeletons in the closet". What skeletons? What actions?
What concrete action has Hillary Clinton undertaken that is morally suspect? Seriously. Name something.
I am not defending her by any stretch here, but neither am I going to buy into her enemies propaganda without doing some basic skeptical, critical thinking.
The more I see the more I am reminded of the "repeat the lie enough until everybody accepts it as truth" trope.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions